Squara Fabien, Scarlatti Didier, Riccini Philippe, Garret Gauthier, Moceri Pamela, Ferrari Emile
CHU de Nice, Hôpital Pasteur, Service de Cardiologie, 30 Avenue de la Voie Romaine, CS 51069, 06001, Nice Cedex 1, France.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018 Jul;52(2):209-215. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0355-x. Epub 2018 Mar 13.
Fluoroscopic criteria have been described for the documentation of septal right ventricular (RV) lead positioning, but their accuracy remains questioned.
Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator implantation were prospectively included. RV lead was positioned using postero-anterior and left anterior oblique 40° incidences, and right anterior oblique 30° to rule out coronary sinus positioning when suspected. RV lead positioning using fluoroscopy was compared to true RV lead positioning as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Precise anatomical localizations were determined with both modalities; then, RV lead positioning was ultimately dichotomized into two simple clinically relevant categories: RV septal or RV free wall. Accuracy of fluoroscopy for RV lead positioning was then assessed by comparison with TTE. We included 100 patients. On TTE, 66/100 had a septal RV lead and 34/100 had a free wall RV lead. Fluoroscopy had moderate agreement with TTE for precise anatomical localization of RV lead (k = 0.53), and poor agreement for septal/free wall localization (k = 0.36). For predicting septal RV lead positioning, classical fluoroscopy criteria had a high sensitivity (95.5%; 63/66 patients having a septal RV lead on TTE were correctly identified by fluoroscopy) but a very low specificity (35.3%; only 12/34 patients having a free wall RV lead on TTE were correctly identified by fluoroscopy).
Classical fluoroscopy criteria have a poor accuracy for identifying RV free wall leads, which are most of the time misclassified as septal. This raises important concerns about the efficacy and safety of RV lead positioning using classical fluoroscopy criteria.
已描述了用于记录右心室间隔部起搏导线定位的透视标准,但其准确性仍受到质疑。
前瞻性纳入连续接受起搏器或除颤器植入的患者。使用后前位和左前斜40°投照以及右前斜30°投照来定位右心室导线,在怀疑时用于排除冠状窦定位。将透视下右心室导线定位与经胸超声心动图(TTE)评估的真实右心室导线定位进行比较。两种方法均确定精确的解剖定位;然后,将右心室导线定位最终分为两个简单的临床相关类别:右心室间隔部或右心室游离壁。通过与TTE比较评估透视对右心室导线定位的准确性。我们纳入了100例患者。在TTE检查中,100例中有66例右心室导线位于间隔部,34例位于游离壁。透视与TTE在右心室导线精确解剖定位方面一致性中等(k = 0.53),在间隔部/游离壁定位方面一致性较差(k = 0.36)。对于预测右心室间隔部导线定位,经典透视标准具有较高的敏感性(95.5%;TTE显示右心室导线位于间隔部的66例患者中,有63例通过透视正确识别),但特异性非常低(35.3%;TTE显示右心室导线位于游离壁的34例患者中,只有12例通过透视正确识别)。
经典透视标准在识别右心室游离壁导线方面准确性较差,大多数情况下会误分类为间隔部导线。这对使用经典透视标准进行右心室导线定位的有效性和安全性提出了重要担忧。